July 2025 Newsletter

Written By Stephanie Hwang

Hello and welcome to the July 2025 tech policy roundup. This month revealed a stark shift in how the U.S. governs technology, with a federal agenda favoring rapid innovation and deregulation even as courts and Congress push back in key areas. From the White House’s sweeping AI plan and crypto legislation to battles over online speech, cybersecurity, and kids’ online safety, this month’s newsletter shows policy choices redefining who holds power in our digital world. Each story below breaks down what happened and why it matters for you. Let’s dive in.

Trump Administration Unveils AI Action Plan Emphasizing Deregulation

  • What happened: President Trump launched a long-awaited AI Action Plan outlining over 90 initiatives to “Accelerate Innovation, Build AI Infrastructure, and Lead in AI Diplomacy.” The plan fast-tracks federal adoption of AI (especially in defense), calls for rolling back “regulatory barriers” that could slow AI growth, and urges limits on state or local rules for AI systems. In tandem, Trump issued executive orders banning federal use of “ideologically biased” AI tools, streamlining permits for AI projects, and promoting exports of U.S. AI tech.

  • Why does this matter? (WDTM?): It’s a clear signal that federal AI policy is pivoting toward industry-friendly deregulation. Tech companies applauded the emphasis on innovation, but critics warn the administration is prioritizing speed over safety and thereby potentially undermining democratic safeguards and oversight of AI impacts. The push to preempt state AI laws also raises federalism concerns, as many states, including California, Colorado, and New Jersey are enacting their own AI accountability measures. Keep watch for how the administration tries to navigate this patchwork. 

U.S. Retreats from ‘Internet Freedom’ Diplomacy, Targets Foreign Tech Regulators

  • What happened: In a dramatic foreign policy shift, the State Department gutted its offices for internet freedom and digital rights, ending over a decade of U.S. support for global online freedom programs. At the same time, the Trump Administration moved to punish overseas regulators it claims are hostile to U.S. tech platforms. In early July, Trump slapped 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods and later a sweeping 40% duty on most Brazilian imports, alleging Brazil’s courts engaged in “secret and unlawful censorship” of American social media companies. New visa bans and executive orders similarly targeted foreign officials accused of censoring U.S. tech firms.

  • Why does this matter? (WDTM?): This marks a paradigm shift in U.S. digital diplomacy. Instead of promoting an open internet via aid and advocacy, the U.S. is now wielding trade weapons to pressure other countries’ tech policies. The message to governments worldwide is sharp: regulating platforms or online content in ways the U.S. disapproves could invite economic retaliation. The U.S.’ switch to economic pressure and punitive measures is in large departing from its historical approach of being a digital rights advocate and aid giver. 

On Tuesday, Trump announced $92 billion in new private data center and energy investments as his administration seeks to bolster the U.S.’s power supply in an effort to rapidly develop AI, which consumes a significant amount of energy. 

Congress Rejects Ban on State AI Regulation in Budget Bill

  • What happened: The “Big Beautiful Bill Act” that would’ve frozen state and local AI laws for 10 years was signed into law on July 4th. It would have prohibited any state from enforcing AI regulations, effectively forcing states to stand down on AI oversight. In late June, the Senate voted 99-1 to remove this AI moratorium amid bipartisan backlash, and the final bill—signed into law on July 4—contained no such preemption. This ensures states remain free to implement their own AI rules.

  • Why does this matter? (WDTM?): It’s a major win for state-level authority in tech policy. With little movement on federal AI regulation, many states (California, Colorado, Texas, and others) are advancing their own AI transparency and accountability laws to fill the gap. Tech companies will now face a patchwork of state rules, but advocates argue this local action is crucial to address AI biases and harms sooner rather than later. This moment also signals that even in a deregulatory climate, Congress was uncomfortable tying states’ hands.

TikTok Ban Delayed Again as White House Pushes Sale Deadline

  • What happened: The saga over TikTok’s fate in the U.S. took another turn, as President Trump granted a third reprieve to the Chinese-owned video app. By executive order, Trump extended the deadline for TikTok to be sold or banned by 90 days to September 17, 2025. This move comes despite a law passed by Congress (and upheld by the Supreme Court) that formally banned TikTok as of January, and after app stores briefly pulled TikTok in January before the first reprieve. TikTok, which has 170 million U.S. users, thanked the administration for more time to negotiate a divestiture deal.

  • Why does this matter? (WDTM?): The showdown over TikTok encapsulates tensions between national security, economic interests, and digital rights. On one hand, officials cite TikTok as a data risk and tool of Chinese influence, evidenced by Congress’s bipartisan ban and court affirmation. On the other, the Trump administration’s repeated delays (effectively choosing not to enforce a law) raise separation-of-power concerns and have kept the app online. This uncertainty affects millions of users and creators, and it’s testing how far the government can go in policing foreign tech. The outcome could set precedents for tech bans and the global splintering of the internet along geopolitical lines.

First Federal Crypto Law Passed to Regulate Stablecoins

  • What happened: In a landmark for digital currency oversight, President Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law on July 18th; America’s first comprehensive regulation for cryptocurrency stablecoins. The law imposes strict rules on issuers of “payment stablecoins” (digital coins pegged to assets like the dollar). They must maintain 100% reserve backing in safe assets (like U.S. dollars or Treasuries) and provide monthly public audits of their reserves. The GENIUS Act also aligns state and federal rules and explicitly subjects crypto issuers to anti-money-laundering requirements.

  • Why does this matter? (WDTM?): This is the first major U.S. crypto law, aiming to protect consumers and financial stability in the fast-growing stablecoin market. By enforcing reserve transparency and fraud safeguards, lawmakers hope to prevent collapses (like past crypto crashes) and bolster trust in digital dollars. The White House touts it as securing U.S. leadership in digital assets—tying the dollar to the future of crypto. It also shows rare bipartisan agreement on crypto regulation, even as debates continue over how to handle other digital assets like Bitcoin. Globally, the U.S. now joins the EU (with its MiCA rules) in actively regulating crypto, which could set international standards for the $130+ billion stablecoin market.

Antitrust Crackdown: Courts Rule Google Illegally Monopolized Markets

  • What happened: July saw momentum in the antitrust battle against Big Tech. In a suit by the Justice Department and states, a federal judge ruled that Google abused monopoly power in the online advertising market. This follows a 2024 decision in a separate case that Google’s exclusivity deals also illegally monopolized online search, with the court now weighing remedies like limiting payments to phone makers. Google is fighting back, saying it will appeal and insisting the courts are wrong.

  • Why does this matter? (WDTM?): These rulings mark the first major court wins against Google’s dominance after years of investigations. If upheld, they could force structural changes to Google’s business like undermining parts of its ad tech or ending the lucrative default search deals that cement its power. For consumers, that might mean a more level playing field for rival search engines and ad services, and less concentration of data in one company’s hands. It also energizes antitrust enforcement broadly: regulators may be emboldened to pursue other tech giants, and Big Tech’s decades-long era of “too big to challenge” is being tested in court.

DOJ Backs Lawsuit Claiming Content ‘Censorship’ Violates Antitrust Law

  • What happened: In an unusual twist, the Justice Department intervened in a case linking online speech to competition law. The DOJ filed a statement of interest supporting a lawsuit by Children’s Health Defense (an anti-vaccine group led by RFK Jr.) against major news organizations. The lawsuit alleges that an alliance of news outlets (the “Trusted News Initiative”) colluded with tech companies to suppress COVID-19 disinformation, thereby “deplatforming” CHD and others. DOJ’s Antitrust Division agreed, arguing that “when companies abuse their market power to block out and deplatform independent voices…they harm competition and threaten the free flow of information”—and affirmed that antitrust laws protect the “marketplace of ideas”.

  • Why does this matter? (WDTM?): This is a novel use of antitrust law to challenge content moderation and fact-checking efforts. The government is essentially siding with those who claim “Big Media” and social platforms unfairly silenced them, framing it as an anti-competitive practice. Supporters of the DOJ's move say it protects diverse viewpoints; but critics worry it’s a politicized attempt to chill efforts to curb misinformation. By blurring the line between censorship and competition, the case could redefine how far companies can go in coordinating to filter false or harmful content. It highlights the ongoing power struggle over who controls online narratives, raising tough questions about free speech and the role of government in digital discourse.

Trump Unveils $92 Billion Data Center and Energy Investments to Power AI Development

  • What happened: On July 15 in Pittsburgh, President Donald Trump announced over $90 billion in new private-sector investments to expand data centers and power infrastructure. The funding comes from 20 leading energy and tech companies (including Google, Blackstone, and AI cloud firm CoreWeave) and will finance projects like massive data centers, natural gas power plants, and electric grid upgrades across Pennsylvania. This initiative, unveiled at Senator Dave McCormick’s inaugural Pennsylvania Energy and Innovation Summit, is designed to bolster the U.S. energy supply and computing capacity needed for rapid growth in artificial intelligence, which demands enormous electricity

  • Why it’s important: Trump hailed the $92 billion package as the largest investment plan in Pennsylvania’s history. It will address one of the biggest bottlenecks in AI expansion: the immense power requirements of advanced AI systems. It also reflects the administration’s strategy of linking energy dominance and hardware with technological leadership, as officials argue that maximizing U.S. energy capacity is crucial to staying ahead of China in the global AI race.

Cybersecurity Shake-Up: White House Rolls Back Rules, Congress Limits CISA Cuts

  • What happened: The federal approach to cybersecurity underwent significant changes. President Trump issued an executive order voiding many Biden-era cyber initiatives, which the White House deemed “distracting.” The order eliminated planned requirements for software vendors to prove they meet rigorous security standards and halted moves toward adopting next-generation post-quantum encryption for government systems. Meanwhile, Trump’s 20226 budget proposed slashing the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) by almost 25%, but in July a bipartisan House committee pushed back with a much smaller 4.6% cut to CISA. The committee’s Republican chair argued CISA had “strayed” beyond its core mission and declared “the days of [online] censorship… efforts are over,” referring to prior disinformation-monitoring programs. Democrats warned that even a $135 million cut could undermine America’s cyber defenses.

  • Why does this matter? (WDTM?): These moves reflect a philosophical shift in U.S. cybersecurity strategy. The administration is prioritizing reduced regulation on tech vendors—aiming to ease compliance burdens on industry—even though experts say insecure software has been a root cause of major hacks. Scaling back CISA’s funding and scope, especially its work on election misinformation or “whole-of-society” cyber programs, might refocus the agency but could leave critical gaps (for example, in helping counter ransomware or foreign influence operations). Cyber threats from state-backed hackers and criminals remain high. The tension between streamlining government cybersecurity efforts and maintaining robust defenses will ultimately impact the resilience of everything from power grids to hospitals that rely on CISA’s support.

Renewed Push for Online Kids’ Safety Stirs Debate

  • What happened: Lawmakers are reviving efforts to protect children online. In May, a bipartisan group reintroduced the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), and over the summer it gained attention as potentially the first major children’s internet law since 1998. KOSA would create a legal “duty of care” requiring social media platforms and other sites likely to be used by teens to act in minors’ best interests, for example by curbing features that fuel addiction or expose kids to self-harm and eating disorder content. The bill also mandates new parental controls and privacy settings for users under 17. Tech companies including some initial skeptics have signaled support, but the proposal has also drawn fire from digital rights and LGBTQ groups worried about overreach.

  • Why does this matter? (WDTM?): There is growing consensus that more must be done to address social media’s impact on youth mental health. Health organizations and even Big Tech CEOs have endorsed KOSA’s goals, reflecting public pressure after years of reports on teen harm. However, critics argue the bill’s broad safety mandate could lead platforms to over-censor content (including resources for LGBTQ+ youth) or invade teens’ privacy in the name of parental oversight. The fate of KOSA (and parallel efforts in states like Utah and Texas to restrict minors’ social media use) will shape how the next generation experiences the internet. It’s a balancing act between safeguarding kids from real online dangers and preserving their rights to information and autonomy in the digital age.

Closing thoughts: July 2025 saw Washington deregulating to boost innovation and U.S. tech dominance, even as Congress and courts stepped in to uphold certain safeguards. Global norms are being tested, from internet freedom to trade retaliation. And at home, we’re starting to feel the consequences of tech deregulation.

Thanks for reading, and stay tuned for the August 2025 Newsletter.

Stephanie Hwang
Next

June 2025 Newsletter